DVDActive uses cookies to remember your actions, such as your answer in the poll. Cookies are
also used by third-parties for statistics, social media and advertising. By using this website, it is
assumed that you agree to this.

Universal Studios Home Entertainment has provided us with some revised art

Further Details:
Universal Studios Home Entertainment has announced DVD ($29.98) and Blu-ray/DVD Combo ($34.98) releases of The Thing (2011) for January 31st. Extras will include a commentary with Director Matthijs van Heijningen and Producer Eric Newman, deleted/extended scenes, and 2 featurettes ("The Thing Evolves", "Fire & Ice"). The Blu-ray/DVD Combo release will also include an UltraViolet digital copy of the film. We've attached the official package artwork for each of the releases below:

Revised Artwork

Original Artwork

Synopsis

Quote: When a simple experiment frees the creature from its frozen prison, it unleashes a flood of chaos and paranoia upon the camp, pitting the team against one another. With the ability to mimic the physicality of anything or anyone that it touches, the shape-shifting creature makes everyone a suspect in this suspenseful psychological thriller. From Dawn of the Dead producers Marc Abraham and Eric Newman, The Thing also stars Ulrich Thomsen (Season of the Witch), Eric Christian Olsen ("NCIS: Los Angeles"), Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje ("Lost"), Paul Braunstein (Tuxedo) and Kim Bubbs ("Bloodletting & Miraculous Cures").

Advertisements

Comments

Reply

Message

Enter the message here then press submit. The username, password and message are required. Please make the message constructive, you are fully responsible for the legality of anything you contribute. Terms & conditions apply.

Monkey Boy, just wanted to say thanks - you have in part inspired the petition to Universal to release the original workprint that was screened to test audiences prior to the original April 2011 release date. This had started out as a call for a "practical effects cut" but I think everyone realises that Universal aren't about to spend any more money on this project.

It's been confirmed now by a couple of parties (ADI and one of the cast) that this original cut does exist. We're calling for Universal to release that as a digital download - this should involve a minimal budget. You can sign the petition at http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/thething

Also, Director Matthijs van Heijningen, the practical effects team from ADI and the team from Image Engine who did the CGI will be fielding questions from fans at the outpost 31 forums at http://thethingfan.11.forumer.com/viewforum.php... - we're hoping to find out more about this original cut in those discussions.

I know about the live broadcast remake of "The Thing From Another World", but the network is news to me. I was under the impression that would be the same network which did his other live performance ("Fail_Safe" - CBS, April 9th, 2000).

As for the '3-eyed aliens'; to quote myself from page 1, "Too many sources, they kinda blur now.".

I keep forgetting to include this...

Here are a couple of snaps off that YouTube video from Amalgamated Dynamics of the three eyed alien - Pilot. The bumps in the center of the second link are independent eyes; reminiscent to the ones used for the Bug Brain from "Starship Troopers".http://tinyurl.com/6vp9hdvhttp://tinyurl.com/723jglw

My question got answered - it's a deleted ending. The morphic creature had transformed itself into the ship's original occupant to pilot the ship. Carter was to have killed that iteration with his flame thrower. At least explained by GrrrDevin on IMDb. I still think that person is Kate.

Thanks, Monkey Boy, for all your info. Where did you get the info that 'the thing' was a passenger on a ship piloted by 3-eyed aliens? That is very interesting. Also, do you remember hearing of a live, George Clooney produced version of The Thing that was announced at one point several years ago that was to have aired on NBC? I never heard any more on it, and next I heard was the prequel we got. And I would love to see the 'more practical effects' version of the 2011 Thing, but it would appear doubtful. But you never know. Who'd have thought we'd get a prequel 29 years later? FYI - The Thing and Blade Runner came out the same day in June of '82. Two genre classics underappreciated upon initial release.

I just can't see how the Thing(s) are learning as they go, if there is not direct cell-to-cell 'daughters' down the line carrying any cellular memory. Learning is not possible unless the Things are communicating psychically.

The Norwegian things that made it to the American camp are the dog, and the burnt pile MacReady and Doc brought back. The burnt heap got Bennings only, then they were both destroyed. That cuts off that branch. So the dog-thing got to at least one or two humans in the American camp, before being put in the kennel... but the dog-thing was killed & infected originally by the Insectoid original Thing, died, healed/transformed, then took off running later... The dog-thing should have no earthly 'learned' behavior other than how to act like a dog.

So even if the dog 'learned' anything from say Norris or Palmer when it infected them, there was no previous memory the dog would have, or acquire, about there being a problem with fillings or ear rings, or problems with ripping clothes or making a mess. Have I missed anything? hehe

By the time the creature has left the Norwegians it has 'learned' a thing or two about humans - deception is the only way for it to survive; immediate and medium-term.

The transformations that occured there (2011) was its beta. Up until that point it have never encountered our speices. Overtaking was messy and not very clandestine.

By the time it reached the American outpost it had learned that. As with the dog biting one of the crew. A few cells - reproduce and replace, no mess. That person would remain that person until the process was complete or when his/her brain was duplicated.

Each one of these intruder cells carries what is best described as genetic memory. It can recall different physiques for what that particular situation calls for.

The more cells, the more memory - like RAM. That bite had enough memory to keep up the fraud.

What was the main thing that exposed itself (2011)? The bloody shower; Kate found the aftermath of a transformation. It even went as far to clean up its mess to keep up the deception.

What the cells may have had in memory was the 'instinct' to keep hidden. NO messy transformation unless out in the open. The dog kennel? That could very well be something it needed to complete BEFORE morning. It learned that a single person could take it down, Kate and later MacReady. More imitations = increase survival.

Clothes that were ripped, but not messy - a clean overtaking. Those ripped clothes could be a red herring, paranoia. It could be anybody's dirty underwear. A false direction, people looking for shredded clothes instead of missing fillings. Not to mention planting evidence to further its hoax.

Yeah, I know that but the point is it absorbs the person then issues forth an exact copy right? one that is all gooey and stuff so how come the clothes are clean?

Does it undress you first before it has you off? does it do the washing once it's copied you?

It's a massive unexplained hole in the way the creature operates and it's bugged me since I saw the original when McReady says that he thinks it rips through your clothing when it takes you over but the person who is the thing always ends up wearing the same clothes they had on before they got thinged.........

I think something that really hurt this movie was the title. I can't tell you how many people I encountered thought this was a remake. I know the makers didn't want some lame subtitle, but they could have done something to the effect of "The Thing Is Here" or "The Thing Lives". Something in the line of a sentence could have worked. It was a huge mistake to call it simply "The Thing". By not differentiating itself, it gives itself too much to live up to.

I remember seeing a video of someone walking through the Universal Halloween 'Thing' walkthrough attraction at the park, and there was a room in there that had a bunch of little lab animal cages that looked broken out from within... was there anything like that on the cutting room floor? I saw that before the film and was disappointed not to see any Rat-things or Rabbit-things in the film...

After making this live broadcast TV movie, "Fail-Safe" (2000; CBS), he wanted a new property for his next live television production. Clooney was looking at "The Thing From Another World" (1951). I wanna see that, too bad it never happened.

It all seems very promising until you view the final product. I found some 'webisodes' on the FX, and some of the practical stuff looked horrific (in a good way). I'd love to see what it looked like before the it got binned to be replaced with CGI.

Come one Universal! Give us a purist's fan-fic! If WB can let Paul Schrader out of the box with his 'failed' version, let us have a '82 style production of Thing 2011.

Maybe it's worth bearing in mind how carpenters movie found its audience in home video. Even though I was disappointed with the new movie, I'm actually finding myself to be quite fond of it. I've tracked down some of those sources you mention above and it does sound like there is a better movie in there, at least for us diehards who like character development and slow build up. Hopefully the deleted footage will be HQ so we can get a decent fan edit.

Also, I just thought... Dimension released two cuts of Halloween 2 and that was supposed to have been a big BO loser. Perhaps it was in Rob Zombie's contract or maybe it's another way of wringing more money out of the home video market. We can but hope.

It was made with a budget of $38 million (estimated). To date - including foreign B.O., the total of ticket sales for the feature is $27.4 million. How much was spent on advertising? It's still way in the red no matter how you spin it.

About the earring... I couldn't make that out. You have sharper eyes. But the soundtrack gives it away after Kate makes her decision.

I own nearly 1000 DVDs and BD's and I'm in no way an advocate of piracy, but I 'borrowed' a copy of The Thing after I had paid money to see it in the cinema to see if a second viewing would clear up some of the issues I had. I actually enjoyed the film more the second time round. I think other fans of the original might enjoy a second viewing more than the first.

toonloon wrote: And what about the video footage that the americans recover in the Carpenter version which showed the crazy swedes blowing up the saucer? That definitely didn't happen. That was the one glaring omission that I thought of too, but it could be explained that the Norwegians never actually uncovered the ship with their explosives as the archived footage in Carpenter's film never shows them examining the ship after setting off their detonations--their explosives may not have made much of a dent in getting close to the depth of the ship. The real problem I have with the ship is that when it is found by the Norwegians it's in some sort of ice cavern instead of embedded in solid ice. It makes for a nice visual, but it doesn't really make any sense.

toonloon wrote: And finally...Spoiler I think Carter was a thing after they got out the snow cat, although the funny look Kate gives him only serves to draw attention to the fact that she is looking for something amiss because his earring is in the correct ear at this point. It's only in the wrong ear when they return. So are we to assume that the Thing takes over Carter, puts his clothes back on intact and then rams the earring through an unpierced ear? Am I missing something? Or some Thing? Hmm...Spoiler When they return to the snow cat at the end Carter doesn't have an earring at all, and it could be explained away that it fell out sometime during their escapade in the ship. It's only when Kate mentions the missing earring and Carter motions to the incorrect ear that she is able to confirm Carter is a Thing.

I'm a huge fan of the original and went to see the movie in London on friday. I thought it wasn't that bad that it sullied the original (Blues Brothers 2000) but that it did have some failings and some continuity problems.

It definitely looked to me like a film that had been screwed around with in post. One thing I did like was the visual echo of Sander and Dr Carrington from the original original. Did anyone else spot that?

SPOILERS.......Spoiler Colin's 'suicide' seemed tacked on, as did the entire coda. Where did that helicopter come from? Sander was clear about not sending messages off base. And what happened to Lars? Did a thing grab him and he fought it off, only to hide in the shack with a rifle?? And what about the video footage that the americans recover in the Carpenter version which showed the crazy swedes blowing up the saucer? That definitely didn't happen. And finally... I think Carter was a thing after they got out the snow cat, although the funny look Kate gives him only serves to draw attention to the fact that she is looking for something amiss because his earring is in the correct ear at this point. It's only in the wrong ear when they return. So are we to assume that the Thing takes over Carter, puts his clothes back on intact and then rams the earring through an unpierced ear? Am I missing something? Or some Thing? Hmm...

lol I was on aicn on The Thing review talkback trying to explain as well that this started out as a film with practical fx and puppets and so on and it got re-edited and reshoots were implemented due to an ambiguous test screening. I personally enjoyed the film for what the director managed to leave in and they did do a great job tying it into the 82 film.

Also Monkey Boy, I remember seeing something on TV on either scifi channel or some other channel that was a making-of for The Thing prequel and they were showing the scene in the rec room being shot with the puppet on Eric Christian Olsen and were showing the puppeteer out of frame with the controls and from how that footage looked, it seems that the puppet's body is at least in the final film and maybe even some of the head because in the behind the scenes footage there was makeup connecting Olsen's face to the false head and it did not look that drastically different than what is in the released film.

Also I think the plot for The Thing direct to video sequel was ultimately used for The Thing video game that was on PC and XBOX and PS2 and that was actually a pretty decent game.

Sorry, I forgot to include this too, related to Toonloon's question...

There was a previous mini-series attempt a year ealier by Sci-Fi, another two parter. The teleplay was written David Leslie Johnson, "Return Of The Thing" (it can be found online).

Part one was subtitled "Exposure"; part two, "Extreme Amplification". Frank Darabont of recent "The Walking Dead" fame was to have served as producer. Yeah. Yeah.

The story took place in the present (2005), where a Russian on board a commercial jetliner over New Mexico has a sample of the organism (the Russins got to the burnt American outpost first, they heard Window's garbled radio message; they've been studying alien since). The being gets loose and causes the plane to crash, releasing it near the small town of Christmas (population 300).

The first iteration was as a coyote. A joint effort by the Russians and Homeland Security happens. The situation goes from worse to apocalyptic. Incidentally in his teleplay, both MacReady (Kurt Russell) and Childs (Keith David) were human and both froze to death.

Why didn't it happen? Best bet is budget, the screenplay offered many horrific transformations that would be hard to accomplish on a television dollar.

Okay. This one too.

The 2011 feature inadvertently ends a nearly three decade long argument, the ambiguous ending - was Childs an imitation? As explained in the '11 motion picture, the organism ejects what it can not absorb, inorganic material; earrings, tooth fillings and metal braces.

There has been much speculation over Childs who disappeared for nearly all the final act, returning only after MacReady killed the beast. Had he been replaced?

In light of the prequel; Childs at the end still has his earrings on the correct ear. Confirming that in fact the man was still human. This also can be added to Dr. Copper (Richard Dysart) who wore his nose ring right up to his death - human.

I liked the film. I'm a serious John Carpenter fan, and I feel "The Thing" is the best film he's yet to make. This prequel had a lot of genuine horror to it with the right suspense, tension, and atmosphere. Where it falls short is creating memorable characters. It's very hard to rival those in Carpenter's movie, but I feel that's the only significant place where this new movie falls short. It's worth watching for the good quality horror. The effects are decent, nothing amazing, but still creepy.

Moore was commissioned by the Sci-F Channel to write a two part "Thing" mini-series in 1996. He didn't finish the teleplay until March of 2009. The reason for the delay was Moore's involvement in the completion of his television series, "Battlestar Galactica".

Man I don't even remember where I found this. A quote from Moore on the subject...

Moore: "I did my drafts. They were happy. They have a director and, you know, it's the feature world and I'm not the key player so we just wait and see if they're going to greenlight it or not. I'm not the chef. I'm the short-order cook who comes in and does my thing and we'll see what they want to serve."

Moore (continues): "It's not a remake. It's really a companion piece to the Carpenter version. We're telling the story of the Norwegian camp that found the Thing before the Kurt Russell group did, so it's very buried in the continuity [and] it's supposed to be the other story that you saw part of. So we didn't want to reinvent it. It was really much the opposite. We really wanted to have this flow seamlessly into what he did."

One of the early reports (post sc**pped mini-series) was the Universal wanted to make a sequel, but it would've been a direct to video production. Yeah! That bullet was dodged.

Yeah, IMDb message board - negative comments on director. Some very cruel. Lately there has been a growing number of trolls infecting the site.

As for the your comment Mlcm, knowing "difference between an artist and a work of art". No. I can say for a fact, the general populous does not - they are one and the same. I'm old enough to remember when the government used to have an endowment for the arts.

I guess a good examples are singers. It has to be explained that they don't always (now very rarely) write their own songs. Same difference.

Monkey Boy, that's a great response to my comment. I appreciate you taking the time to aggregate your sources. However, despite such wealth of information, my opinion on the appraisal of the film has not been changed. Your example of Equilibrium is interesting. I saw the movie a long time ago, and I wasn't overly impressed. I didn't blame the director solely; only a fool puts the entire blame of a film onto the shoulders of one person. Film is collaborative. To me, the fallacy of judging a film by its hypothetical first draft is that there's an assumption that the longer version is BETTER than the released version. People assume that the film was fantastic before the Snidely Whiplashes of the studio get their claws on the film. Sometimes, director's cuts turn out to be worse, eg. Donnie Darko, Apocalypse Now.

Until I see the "director's cut" of The Thing, I will only judge the film that has been presented. Also, are people really attacking the director personally? Are people going out of their way to bash this guy? This is a serious question. Maybe I'm naive but I tend to assume people know the difference between an artist and a work of art.

Monkey Boy thank for your insightful post! am i forgetting this or did they NOT show what happens to Colin (the dead boy we see in the chair with his thoat and wrists slit in Carpenter's film) in this movie? lol. one minute he's hiding from the 2 faced creature then we just never see him agian ever! i ready that there's a scene that showed one of the arm bug things on the ceiling in the room Colin is hiding and and it's about to attack him but he kills himself first. the way (if i'm remembering this Colin omission) they left it with NO scene showing his fate is ridiculous.

I've been following this movie since February of 2010. When this flick had an April 29th (2011) release. I'm a fanboy and the '82 film has a very special place in my heart.

I saw the Carpenter reboot in a drive-in (remember those?). I went in blind with my mom and her friend. No idea what I was about to see. In my entire cinematic life I've never been so terrified. I was nine years old. WTF?! I spent much of the film in the back seat, eyes closed - covering my ears (didn't want to hear the screams [on screen or from the audience]) and what is best described, the fetal postion. For that two hours I was messed up!!! It could've been horrible, going to bed that night and having vivid nightmares. Nope, didn't happen. The double bill was Clint Eastwood's "Firefox". By the time that was done, I was all good. Thank you Mr. Eastwood.

Never owned the Carpenter film on cassette, but I did buy the special edition laser disc and twice over on DVD.

Anyhow I've been following the subject for years, back when this was to be a two part mini-series on then called Sci-Fi Channel. I have that teleplay download (completed by Ronald D. Moore in 2009). Then you had that miss Carpenter tale; Fall of 2008, Carpenter and producer Marc Abraham were developing their own prequel (fell apart since JC wanted a budget that Universal wouldn't approve). By the way Abraham went on to produce the '11 version.

There was another cut plot point (2011), food contamination - mentioned by Bennings in the '82 film; everybody preparing their own meals. It happened here... the coffee. You see the beverage tray carried about ominously around the rec room. Kate brings the cup to her lips and almost drinks it, but was busy and puts down the cup.

This is rumor, I have no way (for now) of confirming. Early on there was a mention that did not get repeated. Maybe since it would've been a twist that they wanted to keep under wraps. The events unfold as if they just NOW found the organism and bring in Kate. In the time between her arrival, one or more of the Norwegians have already been overtaken.

This would explain why characters who didn't get exposed become imitations. But I can't say for certain. There were reshoots after the test screenings besides adding CGI. So things get real muddy.

Oh yeah, the introductions to Sam and his friend Jameson was different, they greet Kate and gang at McMurdo (I believe). Plus there was a direct connection to the '82 film. A picture of MacReady hanging on the wall with the words "don't fly with him".

- - -

You are correct Mlcm. It should be analyzing as presented, BUT there is a behind the scenes story that is just as important. And as you can see from the above links, it does exist. Or at least did, lost.

Looks, people bash Kurt Wimmer's 2006 feature, "Ultraviolet". And they have good reason. It's an okay movie, I was entertained. But I wouldn't call it a great motion picure. But there's a huge backstory.

The agreement was to create an R rated film, Wimmer did that. In post-production the studio changed their mind, PG-13. There was a fight and the studio took the movie away from him. The film lost twenty or so minutes (its run time now is eighty-eight minutes), characterization axed and effects redone. This is NOT the feature he made. When people are being so critical, they need to know what lead up to this... mess. The problem is that so little know about it. Their opinion could change knowing what had happened.

The same thing is happening again. People are bashing van Heijningen without knowing the bigger picture. Calling him a liar and far worse. He made a big point saying this much of this flick would be done for real; make-up, puppets and animatronics. The end result is mostly CGI.

It's messed up, man.

By the way, did you know there's a sex toy call the "Sqweel" that resembles that dog tongue flesh flower from the kennel scene (1982)? Ten silicone little tongues on a motorized wheel, creepy. I have subscription to AVN.

Chris Gould wrote: I love the way the official synopsis gets a key plot point wrong. The creature can't imitate 'anything' it touches - there's an entire scene dedicated to that in the film... The plot point that it can't imitate anything it touches also attempts to answer the question as to whether or not Childs is a Thing creature at the end of Carpenter's movie...

MonkeyBoy, how are you getting this information? Also, if the film is meant to stand on its own merits, we should be analyzing the text as presented, not a hypothetical version that doesn't exist. When critics analyze a D H Lawrence novel, they tend to examine the published draft, not the disparate and numerous drafts that came before. The text is the text. What is to be studied is what is within the text, not without

"So just like the Carpenter film then? How can you defend this by stating that a better version exists when you have never seen that version?"

This movie is its own entity, intended to stand on its own merits. And be part of a bigger tome should you want. Which I do.

What I mean - a better version exist (or did) than what was given to us fans - and the general audience.

The opening was different. Kate gets recruited at dinner by her friend; the build up to the monster was slower. Don't think of this as a Carpenter imitation, let it stand on its own, much like the various sequels in the James Bond franchise.

Anyhow, more questions got answered.

Missing from the final film are the actions of Lars (Jørgen Langhelle), who ends up being one of the last men standing. Yeah, it's a spolier. He's a klutz. Throughout the film we were to seen him knocking over stuff - he's a clumsy, big guy. We expect him to be killed/copied early on. Nope. He made it. He's the one in the chopper hunting the dog imitation. He's also the guy who butterfingers the grenade in the 1982 film. The dope threw explosive behind him by accident. This character development is gone; so is the pay off.

Is this version SO MUCH better?

Don't have a clue, as you wrote, I haven't seen it. But I did see the movie at my theater (opening day). And let me tell you, it can be improved upon.

Sorry, my error; forgot to include Andy3105 question.

Kate and Sam go after Sander who's running to the saucer (not in a snowcab). The good guys race toward the ship in their vehicle. The foot prints in the snow from Sander are getting longer and longer. He/it transformed into something that could run faster than a man.

I have been a fan of John Carpenter's The Thing since I first saw it on VHS, I have 2 versions of it on DVD as well as the Blu Ray and HD-DVD versions.......

I really like this film, however to pick up on a couple of points made by Monkey Boy, I did get the sense that cuts had been made to character development and I felt that the creature was introduced too early and some of it's attacks were too out in the open where in Carpenter's film it used stealth to acheive it's goals in the main.

However one thing from Monkey Boy's post doesn't make sense to me, if there was only one snowcat left, then how did the creature get to the craft? if it took the snowcat then how did Kate and Carter get there?

Since the creature has been shown to freeze in subzero temperatures and we know that man also suffers the same fate, then they all would have required transportation in order to reach the ship, 2 snowcats make sense......

I will be buying it but I do hope that there is an alternative cut with more character work in it, just to expand upon some of the cast who ere underused.

Monkey Boy wrote: Gone is the bleak ending where Kate is dead. She survived, but will freeze to death (there is no snowcat left, the single vehicle was destroyed killing the beast). The ending now is... ambiguous. So just like the Carpenter film then? How can you defend this by stating that a better version exists when you have never seen that version? It might have been just as disposable.

Universal hired Matthijs van Heijningen, a first time director to exert control over him. By all accounts he did a massive job researching the project. Most of the effects were done practically with some CGI to enhance the finished product. Physical effects were done by Amalgamated Dynamics, Inc. (ADI). CGI work done by Image Engine.

The theatrical release (DVD/Blu) is the b*****d version. And may very well be the only version we ever see (since it bombed at the box office).

The film had a test screening which resulted in the butchering. The audience didn't react at all, silence. The studio thought it was the effects and had all the practical effects overlayed with CGI. Add to that, they cut out character development and pushed the creature's appearance sooner.

This is why I hate test screenings, the concept is fine. I agree with that. But the audience you get is random. You need horror fans for horror movies. RomComs for romantic comedies and so. The results you get are inaccurate.

The rec room scene where one of characters has his face melted into another was done practically. The effect took almost four months to complete. NONE of that is in the final film.

Gone is the bleak ending where Kate is dead. She survived, but will freeze to death (there is no snowcat left, the single vehicle was destroyed killing the beast). The ending now is... ambiguous.

I enjoyed the movie, but I'll be honest. It sucks that we didn't get the see the film as it was intended.

Worse yet, there are some reports that the 'director's cut' was lost. We only have the theatrical. This is 2011, how the hell can a current movie become lost? I guess that could happen it was store TOTALLY digital and that hard drive crashed. But why wouldn't there be additional copies?

I will be buying this. And continuing to point out the reasons why it failed.

And by the way, The Thing was NOT the pilot the craft. The true occupants were three eyed aliens who were explorer. They picked up this creature during their travels. It got out of its pod and infected/overtaking the crew. There was a fight on board, they lost. That's why the ship was wobbling in the 1982 film.

This movie sucked. I'm very lenient on films, especially horror and I don't bash a film when I hear it's a prequel/remake/sequel/reboot, but this movie was just terrible. You care for no one in this movie, the effects are horrendous, and the script is just so bland. Pass.